If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

This kind of stuff reminds me of board games as a kid, you just make up new rules to make sure you win

lol.

I know conservatives want to criminalize abortion, and remove what's left of the ACA. What else is on the right wing agenda? Seems like a lot of litigation lining up against what Scott Pruitt is doing at the EPA, maybe we'll see the whole concept of environmental regulations thrown out? Majority rules on letting states & municipalities codify religious law - as long as it's not the feds, right?

(I believe that was the argument regarding Santa Fe HS in Texas when the ACLU defended a Mormon & Catholic family against prayers over the PA from student body officers for Jesus to help the Mormons & Catholics see the light and the error of their cultish ways and come to the one true savior.)

I have to admit I don't understand LA's hope that it's not another arch-rightist.

I hope he doesn’t nominate a Gorsuch or a Thomas. Another Kennedy or a Lewis Powell would be fine.

How ridiculous is the supreme court, though? We have our nation's ever-dividing big issue - abortion - and its fate lies in the hands of this group of ancient academics, appointed for life. The composition of the court doesn't necessarily ever reflect the needs/desires of the nation, and any one president can have a disproportionate influence on the course of the nation by nothing more than the dumb luck of timing. I have liberal friends who are in full panic mode over the retirement of just one old guy. Bruni - one of the better NYTimes writers - is dramatically anticipating the collapse of all human rights. It's a messed up system.

How ridiculous is the supreme court, though? We have our nation's ever-dividing big issue - abortion - and its fate lies in the hands of this group of ancient academics, appointed for life. The composition of the court doesn't necessarily ever reflect the needs/desires of the nation, and any one president can have a disproportionate influence on the course of the nation by nothing more than the dumb luck of timing. I have liberal friends who are in full panic mode over the retirement of just one old guy. Bruni - one of the better NYTimes writers - is dramatically anticipating the collapse of all human rights. It's a messed up system.

Imagine how conservatives felt with Obama nominating Elena Kagan and Sonya Sotamayor? People's rights will survive. John Roberts and other conservatives in the court have all expressed their belief in stare decisis. It won't be that easy to overturn Roe v Wade and who knows what else.

Anyone want to take any guesses about the results of the Trump-Putin summit coming up? We pulled out of the UN Human Rights Commission, taking care of that potential snag.

Well, since Putin owns Trump (those naked photos of him, you know) I'm sure we can expect a joint agreement on something like a Russian-American non-aggression pact. Maybe cooperation in intelligence matters, free U.S. college education for Russian kids, a Russian wing added to the White House. The possibilities are endless.

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

Imagine how conservatives felt with Obama nominating Elena Kagan and Sonya Sotamayor? People's rights will survive. John Roberts and other conservatives in the court have all expressed their belief in stare decisis. It won't be that easy to overturn Roe v Wade and who knows what else.

I know it will be alright. I'm just pointing out how silly this system is. We have justices who were nominated decades ago.

From the outside, it looks like belief in stare decisis just means you have to do a little more gymnastics when writing your opinion. They vote how they want to vote, and there's plenty of wiggle room in the interpretation of precedent to do it.

I know it will be alright. I'm just pointing out how silly this system is. We have justices who were nominated decades ago.

From the outside, it looks like belief in stare decisis just means you have to do a little more gymnastics when writing your opinion. They vote how they want to vote, and there's plenty of wiggle room in the interpretation of precedent to do it.

Pre 1970 justices averaged service was 15 years. It’s ballooned to 26 years after 1970.

What's interesting to me is that the whole country now convulses, politically, when a SCOTUS position opens. The Supreme Court may have become more important than it ideally should be.

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

I know it will be alright. I'm just pointing out how silly this system is. We have justices who were nominated decades ago.

From the outside, it looks like belief in stare decisis just means you have to do a little more gymnastics when writing your opinion. They vote how they want to vote, and there's plenty of wiggle room in the interpretation of precedent to do it.

But for stare decisis Roe v. Wade would have been overturned decades ago.

But for stare decisis Roe v. Wade would have been overturned decades ago.

Maybe. That's unknowable.

I don't keep up with the day to days of the court, but most of the cases I do read about go along party lines. If precedent were clear and powerful, most cases would be 9-0. There's plenty of room to pretend you are bound by precedent and still vote your conscience.

Life in the Trump Era, Part 2

Originally Posted by sancho

Maybe. That's unknowable.

I don't keep up with the day to days of the court, but most of the cases I do read about go along party lines. If precedent were clear and powerful, most cases would be 9-0. There's plenty of room to pretend you are bound by precedent and still vote your conscience.

Most cases are. I've read a few times that something like 20% of cases are narrowly determined and in recent years that number has been down in the low teens.

I'm opposed to the harassing of politicians in their private lives, and I am especially opposed to personal threats, but I am finding it quite amusing that Maxine Waters is now complaining about the public harassing her as a politician.

What are the well known cases where justices went against their politics in a ruling? The ones I can think of deal with conservatives backing off, like Roberts with Obamacare. You could say those were related to precedent, but they might just be fear or logic or any number of other things.

Well, since Putin owns Trump (those naked photos of him, you know) I'm sure we can expect a joint agreement on something like a Russian-American non-aggression pact. Maybe cooperation in intelligence matters, free U.S. college education for Russian kids, a Russian wing added to the White House. The possibilities are endless.

I think it will be mostly an ice-breaker meeting, devoid of details or agreements (like the UK-NK summit), but with certainly less fanfare, given that 60%+ of the nation still remembers what happened with the 2016 elections and (maybe) 5% of nation remembers about Crimea, Ukraine, the Malaysian Airlines shoot down, the bio-attack in London 3 long months ago, etc. Trump's feeling his oats, the Russian investigation is getting marginalized and discredited, Mueller will be painted as a old patriot deceived by partisan FBI agents who led him in a wrong way.

Mostly Putin-Trump will be about further desensitizing the nation about the realignment of the international order - the US involvement in the post WWII western alignment is dissolving quickly, Trump has a clear affinity toward autocratic dictators - Putin, Kim, Duterte (7000+ death squad killings). Put another way - can *you* imagine Obama praising & elevating Kim like that? In the last week Kim executed a military officer who gave soldiers extra food. No joke.

As this point, who cares about any "pee tape" that might emerge? It's sort of irrelevant now, everyone knows Trump is "not an angel" and any outrage would be explained away as Trump Derangement Syndrome by unhinged Dems. The "Fake News" tag is implanted in everyone's brain, more will believe it if the news contradicts what they feel in their heart the good thing that Trump is ruling the nation, and the media is our enemy, etc.

I have to admit fascination at how quickly Republicans have morphed into the Party of Trump. There are a few truth tellers left - McCain, Corker, Graham, Flake [soon just Graham]- and a whole lot of Republicans bailing out, seeing the wave of authoritarian hunger making them forget their previous principles and cower at the new intra-party reality. (I remember some lectures at the U about the Authoritarian Personality complex - it's amazing how accurate those insights were, so long ago.)

I don't believe in the White Horse Prophecy, of course, but I do believe Mitt Romney may play a pivotal role if America will continue democratic rule, in the longer term. He can bob & weave as well as Trump - a key survival skill. But underneath it all, I think Romney has a base moral compass and the intelligence to know when it is being pressured to change. (Hindsight is 20/20, it's impossible to know what the course might have been, but considering what has happened, what we've learned about human nature, I think America might have been better off if Romney won in 2012. How's that for honest reflection?)

But one thing I've learned from our patients is that every day is a gift, and I'm going to go soak up a beautiful Friday here in Los Angeles and think about how I can do something good for the people I love.

I don't keep up with the day to days of the court, but most of the cases I do read about go along party lines. If precedent were clear and powerful, most cases would be 9-0. There's plenty of room to pretend you are bound by precedent and still vote your conscience.

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

From my point of view, there is no point where it's permissible to treat others poorly. I've certainly broken that rule myself, but I don't feel good or justified about it.

The two arguments I've seen attempting to justify this:

(1) We've always had incivility. _______________ was uncivil (recently or 200 years ago). Why, then, should we be civil?

and

(2) There's never been a more grotesque president, and desperate times call for desperate measures. Basically, we need to fight fire with fire.

I don't find either argument compelling, but I tend to see things from a christian point of view. Even from a strategic/political point of view, however, the restaurant owner hurt her own cause. She'd have served her cause (which is a good cause, I think) better by just giving that women her dinner.

Add a few arguments since last week:

3) Well, they are worse!

4) Well behaved protesters seldom make history.

Again, not very compelling. There just aren't many instances where being mean to someone is better than turning the other cheek.

This line of thinking was nicely articulated the other day by The New York Times’ David Leonhardt in a column urging liberals not to despair. Leonhardt didn’t go so far as to suggest that a right-wing court would be the “best” thing in years. He did, though, urge a course of realism and a new strategy for pursuing liberal policies.

Like, say, winning elections.

“Over the last half-century, conservatives have put more energy into building a movement,” Leonhardt wrote. Above all, he added, “winning local, state and congressional elections.”

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

Many years ago a then-Republican friend of mine said that the Warren Court created New Republicans and energized existing ones. I didn't disagree with him. Hope we see the same phenomenon the next decade. I'm not sure it will, though. That Court helped create the law and order Republicans. I don't see a new issue coming out of this Court that will create a new issues where the camps are not already well established. Sounds like Lipsky has a good point.

Many years ago a then-Republican friend of mine said that the Warren Court created New Republicans and energized existing ones. I didn't disagree with him. Hope we see the same phenomenon the next decade. I'm not sure it will, though. That Court helped create the law and order Republicans. I don't see a new issue coming out of this Court that will create a new issues where the camps are not already well established. Sounds like Lipsky has a good point.

I just think the SCOTUS has become too doggone important.

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

You know, I lost an argument with scratch about precedent, but so many people feel like I do. I read some op-ed's about the justice vacancy. They range from measured to hysterical, but they all seem to think Roe v Wade could be overturned. No one seems to think precedent will be a major obstacle if their minds get made up.

Anyway, I agree. There is imbalance in our checks and balances, with the judicial/executive taking power from an impotent legislative.

Also, to the surprise of no one, the arguments have flipped. Now the democrats will use the "don't legislate from the bench" line, and the republicans will forget they ever said such a thing.

This movement will give some Democrats who want to be president a chance to triangulate.

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”